Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Syriusly]

Because according to Colorado law- refusing to sell a cake to someone because they are black or because they are gay- is absolutely the same.

If the baker had said his religious faith compelled him to not create a cake for a mixed race couple- the court response likely would have been the same.

Uh huh. Sure it would have. Anyone else believe this? Race is enumerated in the Constitution. Gay lifestyles are not. You're familiar with the document that the Supremes work from, right?

Race is not protected in the Constitution.

See the difference between myself and you- is that I have read the Constitution.

A baker cannot refuse to serve a black couple because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- not because of the Constitution.

In Colorado, those protections include not only black Americans but gay Americans.

 

[Silhouette]

A baker cannot refuse to serve a black couple because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- not because of the Constitution.

.

You're aware that in Hively v Ivy Tech the 1964 Civil Rights Act was found to not cover gay lifestyles? When did Congress enact the Gay Lifestyles Act? Can you point me to a date or a link?

You are aware of the part of the Constitution that outlines how new Acts and Amendments must be ratified? Not by the Judicial. It takes the Legislature.

2016 in A: FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.

"Hively fails to thwart the motion to dismiss for the simple reason that this circuit has undeniably declared that claims for sexual orientation are not cognizable under Title VII."

In B:

"Whatever deference we might owe to the EEOC's adjudications, we conclude for the reasons that follow, that Title VII, as it stands, does not reach discrimination based on sexual orientation."

You know Syriusly it's funny. The plaintiff Hively tried the same word manipulation you are trying saying "gay sexual orientation and gay lifestyle are not the same thing!" They accused Hively of "bootstrapping" "shoehorning" language to fit an agenda, just like you do:

In C:

The court expressed concern that the plaintiff had “significantly conflated her claims,” and because the court could not discern whether the allegedly discriminatory acts were motivated by animus toward her gender or her sexual orientation, it deemed the acts beyond the scope of Title VII and upheld the motion for summary judgment in the salon's favor. Id. Several other courts likewise have thrown up their hands at the muddled lines between sexual orientation and gender non-conformity claims and simply have disallowed what they deem to be “bootstrapping” of sexual orientation claims onto gender stereotyping claims....

… noting that the Price Waterhouse theory could not allow plaintiffs to “bootstrap protection for sexual orientation into Title VII because not all homosexual men are stereotypically feminine, and not all heterosexual men are stereotypically masculine.”...

… “Sexual orientation discrimination is not actionable under Title VII, and plaintiffs may not shoehorn what are truly claims of sexual orientation discrimination into Title VII by framing them as claims of discrimination based on gender stereotypes, as Plaintiff at times attempts to do here.”

So I'll ask you again Syriusly, when was the "Gay Lifestyle Protection Act" passed by Congress?

 

[Syriusly]

A baker cannot refuse to serve a black couple because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- not because of the Constitution.

.

You're aware that in Hively v Ivy Tech the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not found to cover gay lifestyles? When did Congress enact the Gay Lifestyles Act? Can you point me to a date or a link?.

Hively v. Ivy Tech didn't mention gay lifestyles. It mentioned sexual orientation- you will lie about anything.

The Colorado case was not about the 1964 Civil Rights Act- what I pointed out that your lie about the Constitution preventing discrimination against blacks by shopkeepers was of course a lie- that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does that across the entire United States.

In Colorado- the discrimination statutes include sexual orientation- along with race.

So yes- in this case- if the plaintiffs had been black- the issue would have been exactly the same.

 

[AZGAL]

This case and the decision on this case has far more "precedent" and impact than most of the media is hollering on about in silly conclusions of "narrow" or ready to be overturned by following cases. WHY? well first of all: Kennedy was angered and bold in his oral statements at the Scotus hearings and he fashioned his concern about the unfairness of the Colorado commission into the prominent voice of the majority written opinion. The decision is not "narrow" in numbers of judges in the majority and not "narrow" in the consideration of the US Constitution's prioritizing protection of religion or religious conscience if there is demonstrated a vital sincerely held religious belief. The government has evolved to allow conscientious objectors to military service if there is proof of deeply held belief against war. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood and Little Sisters of the Poor -Catholic sisters sidestepped providing certain birth control under the force of the Health Care mandate by a Supreme Court victory. A Muslim prisoner won his right to keep his beard in a Scotus case in his favor. The Boy Scouts were not ordered to accept gay scout leaders by the government, but instead changed their policies of their own management negotiations (now "the Scouts"). A very important case is when a St. Patrick's Day parade won in the Supreme Court against a gay pride entry because the st. Patrick's Day parade asserted that the Pride people did not have the same MESSAGE as the parade. The wedding florist may or may not get a hearing at the Supreme court, but she clearly told her gay friend: I am sorry to hurt your feelings, but "because of my relationship with Jesus, I cannot..." provide flowers to your gay wedding. WE SHALL all just have to be tolerant BOTH WAYS in our complex society. Just like denying gays the happiness of same sex marriage in Obergefell was wrong, denying Phillips his right to his deeply held religion was wrong. The hostilities Phillips endured were obvious and wrong as well. He was going to be persecuted by the Commission's regulations or lose his livelihood in the end being punished for his religious beliefs by a governmental agency that should have taken everyone's rights into consideration and should have understood the federal protection of freedom of religion.

"Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case."

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Court never mentions 'lifestyle'.

You are just lying again.

They sent a message about the distinction between something static and protected and something that isn't static and has no enumerations in the US Constitution. It's about time you got the message. Because you will soon enough in plain English. LGBT is a lifestyle.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,"

Not much "lifestyle", innit!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And if you want to claim a reproductive disability, which would be the claim a hetro couple could make, THEN YOU TRULY DO HAVE A MENTAL ISSUE!

No I do not what to claim a reproductive disability for gays . You totally misconstrued and misrepresented my point

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The children have rights as well, they have diminished capability and we need to seek what's best for them, not the adult.

Yes of course! Children have right . I'm so glad that you brought that up. Here is something that I wrote a while back"
Children are Also Victims When Gay and Lesbian Parents and Potential Parents are Discriminated Against by Progressive Patriot (Undated)



I am decidedly weary people of who use children and child rearing issues as pawns in the failed attempts to derail same sex marriage. Those children, who more than anything, need a stable, secure and loving home have a major stake in the issue. Yet, there are those who persist in claiming that children need a mother and a father to the exclusion of all other considerations in order to assail same sex marriage. They will point to bogus and faulty studies that purportedly show that the developmental and emotional outcomes for children of same sex couples is inferior to that of other children. My purpose here to not to debunk those studies-I have done that elsewhere- but rather to address the fact that regardless of what studies show, it is a ludicrous and logically fallacious argument to make against same sex marriage. In plain English, it makes no sense. It's the wrong argument.


Why? For one thing, people of all kinds will have children, regardless of the ability to marry. In addition, even if the outcomes for children raised in same sex household were in fact different than other children Consider this: If we are to base our policies as to who can marry on who does the best jobs with children, perhaps we should be taking a hard look at certain socio-economic or ethnic groups who produce children who's development and wellbeing can be contrasted to that of other groups . Maybe we should look at inner city vs. suburban parenting outcomes to set marriage policy? Is anyone willing to go there?

And how about this: It is known that Asian American children tend to be higher achievers than non Asians, so maybe we should prohibit marriage by white Americans in order to discourage child rearing since whose children might not do as well.

The fact is that there are a couple of million kids already in the care of gay people and couples. Many are the biological children of a gay person. Those children can benefit greatly if their parent is able to marry and the non-biological parent is able to adopt as a second parent. There are many economic, legal and social benefits to doing so. Not allowing the adults to marry only serves to punish those children and place them at a disadvantage.

In some cases gay people adopt children through agencies. Yes, the idea that gay people can adopt has been way out ahead of gay marriage. My home state of New Jersey has been allowing joint adoption by same sex couples since 1997, the first state to do so. These are children who had NO parents until these gay folks stepped up. Maybe someone would like to compare the long term outcomes for children who grow up as wards of the state with those raised by same sex couples. Gay people can and will adopt children regardless of whether or not the parent(s) can marry so why deprive the children the advantages-discussed above- of having married parent

Lastly, perhaps the smallest number of children who are in the care of gay and lesbian parents are those who were conceived with the use of surrogacy, or artificial insemination. These are children who, arguably would not have been born at all While there are those who may believe that their souls might have otherwise been born into a more advantageous environment, we really don’t know that, What we do know is that those children are real, and once again, those children will benefit from having married parents.

So, I ask. What do we do, even if the highly questionable assertion that gay parenting is inferior is correct? Do we discourage or even prohibit gays from having children in their care? Or do we adapt policies to support them and maximize their ability to care for those children? Do we enact complex policies regarding which groups will be encouraged and which will be discouraged from having children based on some measure of their parenting ability which will, most assuredly be disputed. Or, do we treat everyone equally.

And lastly, I submit to you that yes, it is possible that the number of additional children living with gay parents will increase as the result of same sex marriage

Some will adopt and some will have children with medical/ scientific intervention. But those children, like countless others in the care of gay couples, will have two legal parents who are married. A tremendous advantage. And those adopted children had no parents and the ones who were conceived with help, would not have been born at all

 

[AZGAL]

Perhaps while the LGBTQ movement screams "help me we are such victims" the "movement" really has just been exposed for using hateful tactics.

 

[Silhouette]

Perhaps while the LGBTQ movement screams "help me we are such victims" the "movement" really has just been exposed for using hateful tactics.

Justice Thomas warned them. And they didn't listen. You're aware that they're arrogantly as we speak trying to remove food from the mouths of orphans in Michigan just to prove yet another iron-fist point in their cult agenda right? Dumont v Lyon. You can search it here. I have a couple of threads on it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I know perfectly well the two people of the same gender cannot reproduce without-shall we say" third party assistance".

So they can't have families - just like I said. Going out and adopting is NOT "having a family".

They adopt kids and become what then? What do they "have"?

When a woman is in labor - she is having a baby. A woman who goes out and adopts is not having a baby.

Homosexuals cannot have a family. All they can do is take in someone else’s children and attempt to traumatize them.

What the fuck are you talking about!?? Take someone else's children. How are they doing that? Steeling them? You are just pulling that shit out of your ass. It's extremely hateful and ignorant. Describe a case where gay people just "took other peoples children" where those children actually had loving, non abusive, caring parents. If two people of the same sex are caring for children, regardless of how they were conceived, or came to be in their care HOW THE FUCK DO THEY NOT HAVE A FAMILY?

 

[AZGAL]

The win for the baker is also a win for artists. Only the fearful assume this is a scary decision.

 

[AZGAL]

Adoption cases should and most likely will go well for gays and lesbians. No worries there. I myself do not agree with trans whatever "medicine" but I fully support gays and lesbians enjoying parenthood as long as there is a healthy family dynamic. In Arizona a lesbian woman must share custody of her biological child with her female partner after their divorce. She did not want to but the other "mother" cares for the child too.

 

[Silhouette]

Adoption cases should and most likely will go well for gays and lesbians. No worries there. I myself do not agree with trans whatever "medicine" but I fully support gays and lesbians enjoying parenthood as long as there is a healthy family dynamic. In Arizona a lesbian woman must share custody of her biological child with her female partner after their divorce. She did not want to but the other "mother" cares for the child too.

Would you consider a "healthy family dynamic" having a contract that banishes all hope forever of the children involved having either a mother or father?

I presume you've had even a bit of exposure to the tomes of studies done on the deleterious effects of boys not having a father and girls no mother? Everybody always talks about children so vaguely and dismissively in these questions as if they are suitcases or patio furniture. They are human beings; perhaps the most important human being class in our society since they are still malleable and in formative stages. And we act like we can trample them like ants underfoot in these elephantine adult debates. Like "oh yeah, you know, those things...those little afterthoughts"... Like hell.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Perhaps while the LGBTQ movement screams "help me we are such victims" the "movement" really has just been exposed for using hateful tactics.

What hateful tactics are you referring to ? Political activism ? Public protest? Calling out bigots for what they are ? What "hatful tactics" have gays used that blacks, women, other minorities have not used. ? You wont say because you don't want to be called a racist or a misogynist, but you wear the badge of anti gay proudly.

Did blacks and women use "hateful tactics" to gain voting rights and other rights? I do not see much difference. When people are oppressed they do what they have to do. When hate is directed at people they have a right to respond proportionately . I know your kind, hater have to hate. It is just a matter of who is the more convenient target that you can get away with - or think that you can get away with- at any point in history.

 

[AZGAL]

No, I wear the badge of seeing through the LGBTQ games bullshit very well.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, I wear the badge of seeing through the LGBTQ games bullshit very well.

Please elaborate

 

[AZGAL]

Maybe the LGBTQ agendaites should realize that there is a renewed Women's movement too

afloat that has concerns as frivolous as rape, sexual harassment, real discrimination in jobs, oppression that prevents girls and women from obtaining an education, children, aging, and breast cancer - RATHER THAN in a society abundant with shopping choices - WHERE TO BUY A FuKING CAKE !!! so there and good day...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Maybe the LGBTQ agendaites should realize that there is a renewed Women's movement afloat that has concerns as frivolous as rape, sexual harassment, real discrimination in jobs, and breast cancer - RATHER THAN WHERE TO BUY A FuKING CAKE !!!

Like women and racial minorities, LGBT are " beset by much more than where to by a cake. But that does not diminish or trivialize the fact that being turned away from a business open to the public because of sexual orientation is discrimination.

 

[Leo123]

Maybe the LGBTQ agendaites should realize that there is a renewed Women's movement afloat that has concerns as frivolous as rape, sexual harassment, real discrimination in jobs, and breast cancer - RATHER THAN WHERE TO BUY A FuKING CAKE !!!

Like women and racial minorities, LGBT are " beset by much more than where to by a cake. But that does not diminish or trivialize the fact that being turned away from a business open to the public because of sexual orientation is discrimination.

Yeah, everyone has to be a 'victim' typical neo-Marxist crap.

 

[Pop23]

And if you want to claim a reproductive disability, which would be the claim a hetro couple could make, THEN YOU TRULY DO HAVE A MENTAL ISSUE!

No I do not what to claim a reproductive disability for gays . You totally misconstrued and misrepresented my point

So that’s why you left out your argument?

The omission is incredible and purposeful obviously

You are mentally disabled, aren’t you?